Looks like the bumpstock ban is about to become real

[dudley0]

Done and it was really simple as mentioned.

 

[AmmoManAaron]

Hearing set for March 6:

https://gunowners.org/alert22119/

PLEASE everyone, TAKE ACTION by filling out the contact form and sharing GOA's post on social media. GOA makes this Betty Crocker simple from their website.

Done. Quick and easy.

 

[T.Lex]

Done. Quick and easy.

TWSS

 

[MRP2003]

I read that a federal judge gave the go ahead to ban bump stocks on Monday. I still don't see how they can just outlaw them without compensating the people
that have legally owned them prior to the ban.

 

[T.Lex]

I read that a federal judge gave the go ahead to ban bump stocks on Monday. I still don't see how they can just outlaw them without compensating the people
that have legally owned them prior to the ban.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/26/politics/washington-judge-upholds-bump-stocks/index.html

(Apologies for the CNN link.)

Holy carpe diem. Injunction appears to have been denied. I *think* the court of appeals will enjoin enforcement... but heck... that's not a sure thing now.

Trump's administration didn't have to fight the injunction, but they won that round.

I guess he really isn't tired of winning.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Translation for non-legal people?

That mean he's going out of his way to make sure they get banned?

 

[T.Lex]

Translation for non-legal people?

That mean he's going out of his way to make sure they get banned?

Yeah, sorry. Probably deserved a little more explanificationing.

Trump's DOJ passed the rule banning the bumpstocks. Gun owners sued. That puts the DOJ on defense.

Part of the lawsuit asked the court to forbid the government from enforcing the rule, temporarily. That's an injunction (or, they asked the court to "enjoin" enforcement). (Not, "enjoy enforcement" - that usually costs extra.)*

Because the gun owners asked for an injunction, the DOJ had a choice whether to fight it or not. They could have conceded that the injunction was appropriate until the courts decided the ultimate issue. Instead, they fought against the injunction. Or, they fought for the rule to be immediately enforceable. Same thing.

Now, it would be pretty rare (in my limited experience with this kind of thing) for a defendant to agree to an injunction. The natural reaction of both attorneys and litigants is to fight every battle. But, this isn't a battle that absolutely needed to be fought. Trump's DOJ chose to fight to make the rule immediately enforceable.

And they won this round.

A court of appeals will now be presented with the same issue, and likely SCOTUS eventually.


* Just ask Robert Kraft.

 

[cce1302]

Translation for non-legal people?

That mean he's going out of his way to make sure they get banned?

He ordered the ban in the first place. NRA supporrs it. GOA challenged it. Trying to get a judge to put it on hold until the challenge can be heard. Judge says it will go into effect as scheduled. Challenge will be heard later.

 

[Spear Dane]

These items were purchased legally and the government is not offering restitution for the financial loss incurred by those who wish not to become felons overnight. This is highly unjust and needs judicial intervention. Please make your voice heard or they could be coming for your AR-15 next.

There is no 'could' about it.

 

[T.Lex]

I am probably as alarmed by the bumpstock ban as any other gun owner, but there's no way AR-15s will be "next."

Maybe "eventually" but the NFA stuff would be "next." They already know who has them. The weapons are already heavily regulated. It is a much easier case that they are "more dangerous than necessary." In terms of incrementalism, that's a no-brainer.

ETA:
Forgot about other accessories. Those could be next. Things like hi cap magazines, pistol grips, flash hiders. That path has already been charted, so that could be "next" before actual firearms.

 

[cbhausen]

FPC ‘s statement:

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/joint_statement_on_federal_court_ruling_bumpstocks

INGO lawyers, what about GOA’s scheduled hearing on March 6?

 

[T.Lex]

FPC ‘s statement:

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/joint_statement_on_federal_court_ruling_bumpstocks

INGO lawyers, what about GOA’s scheduled hearing on March 6?

The actual opinion is interesting, but I've only skimmed it for some high points. Not sure what the March 6 hearing is, but probably some administrative pre-trial conference to map out next steps. That might get vacated depending on the appeal status.

The judge addresses the takings issue by saying that there will be an opportunity at some later date for the plaintiffs to seek money from the government for their bumpstocks.

*coff*

(@Fargo)

Most of the plaintiffs’ administrative law challenges are foreclosed by theChevron doctrine, which permits an agency to reasonably define undefined statutory terms.

 

[cbhausen]

GOA wanted an extension of the 3/26 effective date of the ban.

 

[Trigger Time]

Might makes right

 

[KLB]

The actual opinion is interesting, but I've only skimmed it for some high points. Not sure what the March 6 hearing is, but probably some administrative pre-trial conference to map out next steps. That might get vacated depending on the appeal status.

The judge addresses the takings issue by saying that there will be an opportunity at some later date for the plaintiffs to seek money from the government for their bumpstocks.

*coff*

(@Fargo)

Should be fun when it gets to the SCOTUS.

 

[T.Lex]

Roberts is the justice for the DC circuit, right?

I gotta believe that he'd enjoin enforcement. In the travel ban, I believe he let the lower court injunction stand, but that's the reverse of this. If he gives deference to the lower court (whole different issue), then he might let the rule take effect.

 

[Fargo]

The actual opinion is interesting, but I've only skimmed it for some high points. Not sure what the March 6 hearing is, but probably some administrative pre-trial conference to map out next steps. That might get vacated depending on the appeal status.

The judge addresses the takings issue by saying that there will be an opportunity at some later date for the plaintiffs to seek money from the government for their bumpstocks.

*coff*

(@Fargo)

As far as administrative law challenges, she would be correct. Criminal law is a different story, which is strangely unaddressed in my skim of the opinion.

 

[T.Lex]

As far as administrative law challenges, she would be correct. Criminal law is a different story, which is strangely unaddressed in my skim of the opinion.

I haven't gone back to resurrect the exact conversation we had about it. That is, the fact that the DOJ has now actually gone through the rulemaking process, instead of just changing the interpretation by letter notice, probably takes it out of the context of our previous discussion.

 

[IronsKeeper]

Hearing set for March 6:

https://gunowners.org/alert22119/

PLEASE everyone, TAKE ACTION by filling out the contact form and sharing GOA's post on social media. GOA makes this Betty Crocker simple from their website.

Easier than chopping up a bump stock..... And far more effective for our freedoms.

Sent from my LM-G710 using Tapatalk

 

[cbhausen]

INGO lawyers, in plain English:

Is GOA’s scheduled hearing in the 6th Circuit moot now? Could the March 26 date still be extended? Or is this “game over”? Because once all the bump stocks are destroyed or turned in it seems the chances of getting the ban lifted decrease dramatically. I’m not sure manufacturers would take the risk of starting production again. And I know this ban is popular with the general public (or at least they are ambivalent about it) which doesn’t help matters.